BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF CROSS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application
no. 62776/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 October
2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Cross v. the United Kingdom,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P.
Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 62776/00) against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Richard
Cross (“the applicant”) on 9 October 2000.
- The
applicant was unrepresented before this Court. The United Kingdom
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
London.
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him Widowed Bereavement Allowance or equivalent constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
4. By a partial decision of 4 December 2001 the Court decided to
communicate this application. It also decided to join this
application to other applications (nos. 60525/00,
60933/00, 60937/00, 60944/00, 61038/00, 61388/00,
61949/00, 63388/00, 63464/00, 63469/00, 63470/00, 63473/00, 63474/00,
63584/00, 63645/00, 63701/00, 63702/00, 64735/01 and 65723/01).
- On
26 August 2003, after obtaining the parties' observations, the Court
declared this application admissible in so far as the complaint
concerned Widow's Bereavement Tax Allowance and declared the
remainder of the application inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Surrey.
- His
wife died on 4 June 1995. On 11 September 2000 the applicant made a
claim to the Inland Revenue requesting an allowance equivalent to
that received by a widow, namely Widow's Bereavement Allowance
(“WBA”) for the years 1995/6 and 1996/7. On 25 September
2000 the Inland Revenue informed him that he was ineligible for WBA
as he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal further as he
considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail
since no such benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom
law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice is described in the Court's
judgment in the case of Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to
grant him WBA or equivalent constituted discrimination on grounds of
sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article
14 of the Convention provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on
any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:
“1. Every natural or legal person is
entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall
be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and
subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general
principles of international law.
2. The preceding provisions shall not,
however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws
as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance
with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those
in the present case and found a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and
Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and
63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007, §§ 53-54).
- The
Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts
or arguments from the Government which would lead to any different
conclusion in this instance. Therefore the Court considers that the
difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement
to WBA, of which the applicant was a victim, was not based on any
“objective and reasonable justification” (see Hobbs,
cited above, § 53).
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention
taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed a total of 575
British pounds sterling (GBP) for WBA.
-
The Government did not make any submissions on that point.
- In
its lead judgment regarding WBA the Court found no reason to remedy
the inequality of treatment by “levelling up” and
awarding the value of tax benefits which had been found to be
unjustified. It accordingly made no award in respect of the pecuniary
loss alleged to have been suffered (see Hobbs,
Richard, Walsh and Geen v. United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00,
63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007, § 69).
- The
Court finds no reason to depart from this finding and consequently no
award can be made under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed 75% of the estimated legal costs for the hurt and
distress caused by the alleged violation.
-
The Government did not make any submissions on that point.
- The
Court notes that the applicant has produced no evidence to
substantiate his claims. It does not accept that he was caused real
and serious emotional damage as a result of being denied a tax
allowance of the relatively low value of the WBA (ibid
§ 72). No award can accordingly be made under this
head.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant, who was not represented, claimed GBP 7.53 in respect of
photocopying and postage costs in connection with correspondence with
the Court and GBP 3,196.03 as an estimate of what a solicitor would
have charged him had he been represented. He claimed a total amount
of GBP 3,203 for costs and expenses, inclusive of value added tax
(“VAT”).
-
The Government contested the claim on the basis of the Court's
jurisprudence.
- The
Court reiterates that only such costs and expenses as were actually
and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation or
violations found, and are reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable
under Article 41 (see, for example, Şahin v. Germany
[GC], no. 30943/96, § 105, ECHR 2003-VIII). It follows
that, in accordance with its case-law, even if the applicant had
indeed spent time working on the case, the Court cannot make an award
under this head, as this time would not represent monetary costs
actually incurred by him (see Buzescu v. Romania,
no. 61302/00, § 114, 24 May 2005, and Lehtinen
v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8
June 2006). As for the postage costs the Court is satisfied that the
sums claimed were actually and necessarily incurred, and reasonable
as to quantum (see Maronek v. Slovakia, judgment of 19 April
2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-III, § 70).
It therefore awards the full amount of 12 euros (EUR).
D. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to disjoin the application from the
others to which it was joined;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
concerning the applicant's non-entitlement to a Widow's Bereavement
Allowance;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the
applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, EUR 12 (twelve euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
together with any tax that may be payable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
